The rhetorical clarity of moral clarity
Bookworm on May 26 2011 at 9:31 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Israel
If you haven’t listened to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, you must. And I mean listen. I’m usually a speech reader, because I read quickly, and seldom have the time or the patience to sit down and listen to someone give a 45 minute speech.
In addition, some speakers have so many rhetorical tics and twitches that I find myself unable to focus on the speech’s content. For example, Obama, when speaking on teleprompter, has a wooden delivery; is artificially rhythmic, as his head swings back and forth from left teleprompter to right; and he tightens his sphincter at the end of most words, which gives his voice a peculiarly hectoring quality. Off teleprompter, in addition to that sphincter tightening, he’s an “uh-er,” with the sound “uh” punctuating his speech at frequent intervals.
Netanyahu’s speech, however, was a delight. His affect was utterly relaxed; his words flowed with unimpeded fluency; his timing was perfect; and his emotional pitch varied appropriately and subtly, ranging from passion, to relaxed conversation, to humor.
The speech’s content matched the delivery. It was pitch perfect: Netanyahu flowed effortlessly from one subject to another, never loosing sight of his themes: American and Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism, the tyranny Muslim Middle Eastern dictators impose on their hapless subjects, and the need for a true peace that involves Arab/Muslim acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. It was a speech that was fully deserving of the applause and ovations Congress accorded it.
The brilliance of Netanyahu’s speech wasn’t just because he’s a bright man, who’s a seasoned orator, who is (or has) a good speech writer, and who believed what he was saying. The speech also worked because moral clarity is the underpinning of all good rhetoric.
It’s no coincidence that the best writers on the Supreme Court are conservatives (Roberts and Scalia), while the worst writers are, and have been, liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter). Liberals spend an inordinate amount of time trying to pretend that disparate ideas, false logic, unworkable syllogisms, bad law, and twisted facts can come together in a smooth, constitutionally whole fabric.
The conservative justices, however, since they begin each decision with the Constitution (itself a simply written document) as their guide, are easily able to bring facts and law together under that already logical umbrella. They therefore repeatedly publish decisions that are well-written, comprehensible, and easy to sell to ordinary Americans, without translation through the Berkeley linguistic filter.
What applies to judicial opinions also holds true for political speeches. The contrast between Netanyahu’s Middle East speech and Obama’s is compelling. Obama’s speech was the usual platitudinous muddle, with rhetorical fluff about sacrifices and freedom sprinkled throughout the speech in an effort to obscure the speech’s real goal: to reduce Israel to its manifestly indefensible pre-Six Day War borders.
Obama, naively, hoped that no one would notice. When they did, he spent the next several days trying to walk his speech back, explaining to all and sundry that he meant what he said, but that they didn’t understand it; or that he didn’t mean exactly what he said; or that ill-wishers (racists all, I’m sure) were misinterpreting what he said.
This wasn’t the first time that Obama — the so-called “Great Communicator” — has found himself stuck in this kind of rhetorical quagmire. Nor should it be a surprise that this happens to him so often. As with the liberal Supreme Court justices, Obama’s speeches, which are all intended to achieve goals that most Americans find distasteful, are always a complicated amalgam of false and true facts, unworkable syllogisms, meaningless platitudes, illogical conclusions, all intended to hide the little content and time bombs buried within.
What made Obama’s latest speech stand out was that, for the first time, the world had the opportunity to contrast it with someone else’s speech on the same subject. Netanyahu didn’t have to rely upon rhetorical misdirection and other tricks to make his point. Because his speech had a starting point of moral clarity — nations that are built upon Judeo/Christian principles and individual freedom are the best — everything he said flowed without rhetorical tricks, traps, or lies.
In other words, the best way to give a good speech (and, if you’re brilliant) a great speech, is to speak the truth. That’s what Netanyahu did, and that’s what Obama was and is incapable of doing.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “The rhetorical clarity of moral clarity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Iranians, before they were conquered and exploited by the Islamic jihadists, believed that you should teach a boy three things for him to become a man.
1. To ride.
2. To shoot a bow.
3. And to despise all lies.
I do believe Bibi schooled our nancy boy POTUS.
…and without a teleprompter.
It was such a powerful (and refreshingly clear) speech, indeed.I noticed when reading it that it was composed of short, simple sentences. So many politicians, like Obama seem to confuse complex sentences with complex ideas. That was the beauty of George Bush – for all of his cringe-inducing grammatical gaffes and malapropisms, when he made an important speech (like after 9-11), his words were simple and his point was clear.
Bring it on. Very popular with people like me. Bush was always the best when he went by his gut and ignored the DC insiders and wannabe intellectuals in his administration.
Can we trade Netanyahu for Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and a slate of Democrat candidates to be named later? I understand that the Israeli’s would want something useful from the trade, so maybe we can throw in a squadron of F-22′s.
What bkivey said.
Ditto.
A real swap meat.
SADIE, LOL!
I commented to a blogger whom I admire, that it is somewhat ironic that Netanyahu has captured the imagination in such a vivid manner. Most may recall that he has not always been in favor in Israel; and actually eked out a plebescite as recently as the last election. I mused whether it was fair to compare him with Churchill; another figure who was in and out of favor, but was the perfect fit at a time of crisis. I also noted that regardless of how Netanyahu’s legacy may be written, he did a great service by so graphically exposing the utter vacuity of Obama.
I did not think his delivery particularly impressive; but, his moral clarity was superb.
I am looking forward to watching the speech this weekend. In the meantime, you either forgot, or have failed to notice my least favorite Obama speech characteristic: he whistles every S that comes at the end of a syllable. I can usually listen to a sentence or two before I realize it’s him again and mute him. He’s way worse than any dog whistle.
Similar moral clarity on Israel from Canada, via JoshuaPundit. Hats off to our friends from Canada!!!
Not only was Canada “the first country to formally reject President Obama’s call for Israel to retreat back to indefensible borders last Thursday”, they rose to the occasion again during the G8 summit today.
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/05/stephen-harper-and-canada-defeat-obama.html